3 ms·
I disagree completely. Ackowledging that "good methods are penalised" would challenge the line generally taken by the Economist in its socio-political pieces:
by rodgerd 10y ago
I disagree completely. Ackowledging that "good methods are penalised" would challenge the line generally taken by the Economist in its socio-political pieces: that if classical liberal economic models were applied to everything, everything would work better.
What's being described here is the consequence of the application of "business thinking" and market-driven funding of science, with all the unintended consequences of trying to apply quarterly metrics to pure research. Suggesting the problem is "not enough punishment" avoids having to ask philosophically hard questions.
- taeric 10y agoI believe we are taking past each other. I specifically do not want more punishment. I want cheaper failures. I want it such that if you spend ten years chasing a dead end, you aren't a failure. You can still have a successful and happy family where your kids have a fair shot, as well. That make sense?
- AstralStorm 10y agoThis would require a tax for science, as all kinds of corporation funding goes to promote bad behaviour such as requiring immediate results. Specifically, much higher level of public funding and more positions to fill.